K.G. Balakrishnan, J.@mdashPetitioner is an advocate''s Clerk attached to the office of an Advocate''s practising in the courts at Palakkad. Petitioner is holder of a registration card issued by the Sheristadar, District Court, Palakkad. In the afternoon of 29th March 1994 at 10'' clock Petitioner, was standing outside the verandah of the Principal Sub Court, Palakkad. A Peon came to that place and told the Petitioner that he had been asked to produce before court the persons who were found talking in the verandah. There were several persons in the court verandah including accused, witnesses, litigants and their relatives. When the Peon came and announced the order of the Judge, the accused, witnesses and other persons got down from the verandah and left the place. According to the Petitioner, the court Peon dragged the Petitioner by his collar and produced before court. Petitioner revealed that he was registered Clerk. But, the Petitioner contends that the Court was not prepared to hear him and straightaway imposed a fine of Rs. 50 and in default to undergo imprisonment for a week. Petitioner was upset and he paid the fine to the hearing Clerk. On the next day Petitioner was given a receipt for payment of Rs. 50. The receipt showed that the fine was collected from the Petitioner in M.C. No. 1/94. Petitioner applied for a copy of the proceedings in M.C. 1/94. Till the filing of the original petition on 5th April 1994. Petitioner did not get copy of the proceedings in M.C. 1/94. Petitioner challenges the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. As the matter pertains to the administration of justice I got the remarks of the Respondent, the Principal Sub Judge, Palakkad through the District Judge, Palakkad. A detailed statement has been submitted by the Principal Sub Judge. The substance of the statement is that on 29th March 1994 while the Principal Sub Judge was recoiling the evidence of the witness in I.P. 2/92 he heard loud noise from the verandah of the court. Persons who were found talking were given warning and a Process Server was directed to see that there shall not be further interruption of the proceedings. Again there was a loud noise from the verandah at about 1.45 p.m. Then the Process Server Krishnakumar was directed to fetch the persons who were talking loudly in the verandah. The Process Server went to verandah and brought the Petitioner to the court room. The further statement of the Respondent is that proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner as contemplated u/s 345 Code of Criminal Procedure and it was read over to him and questioned. Petitioner pleaded guilty and by taking a lenient view sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50 in default simple imprisonment for 7 days. The allegation in the original petition that the Process Server caught the Petitioner by his collar and he was dragged into the court room is not correct. It is alleged that the proceedings in the M.C. case was prepared by the Respondent in open court and the entire proceedings were read over to the Petitioner.
3. I heard the Petitioner''s counsel and the Government Pleader. It is contended by the Petitioner''s counsel that the order passed by the Respondent is fatally flawed in many respects. The Respondent convicted the Petitioner and imposed a fine on him invoking the powers conferred to the court u/s 345 Code of Criminal Procedure It is important to note that procedure contemplated u/s 345 Code of Criminal Procedure were not observed by the Respondent. A copy of the impugned order passed by the Respondent has been furnished along with the remarks of the Respondent. The order reads as follows:
While this Court was examining witness in I.P.2/92 at 1.45 p.m. of today the 29th March 1994, you were engaged in talking in the court verandah and thereby caused obstruction to the court proceedings and, therefore, I see that you have committed offence punished u/s 345 Code of Criminal Procedure
Have you committed the offence ?
I have committed the offence (Answer).
4. From the order quoted above, it is clear that the Respondent assumed that the Petitioner herein committed the offence punishable u/s 345 Code of Criminal Procedure At the outset, I may say that Section 345 Code of Criminal Procedure is not a penal provision. It is a special procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure to deal with certain offenders who have committed offence in the view or presence of any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court. u/s 345 Code of Criminal Procedure the offence punishable under Sections 175, 178, 179, 180 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code are mentioned and it is made clear that if any of these offence is committed in the view or presence of any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in custody and may, at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day, take cognisance of the offence and after giving the offender a reasonable opportunity of show cause why he should not be punished under this Section. The Court has also Keen given the power to sentence the offender to a fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, and, in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month. The further guidelines are also given u/s 345 Code of Criminal Procedure that in every such case the court shall record the facts constituting the offence, with the statement (if any) made by the offender as well as the finding and sentence. If the offence is coming under the purview of Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code the Court specifically record the nature and stage of the judicial proceeding in which the ''Court interrupted or insulted was sitting, and the nature of the interruption or insult. It is also to be noticed that procedure u/s 345 Code of Criminal Procedure could be invoked only if the offence is committed in the view or presence of the Court.
5. This case is to be appreciated in the background of the above procedure prescribed u/s 345 Code of Criminal Procedure. I assume that by the impugned order the Respondent imposed penalty on the Petitioner for an offence allegedly committed u/s 228 I.P.C. Section 228 I.P.C. reads:
228. Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding: Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or cause any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant, is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
under Section 228 I.P.C., an intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding is made punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
6. One of the essential ingredients of the offence is that there must be an intention to interrupt the proceedings of the court. The court must inquire and consider as to whether the offender had interrupted the court proceedings by talking loudly from the court verandah. Merely because somebody talks from the verandah of the court the ingredients of the offence are not satisfied and it cannot be said that there was commission of the offence u/s 228 I.P.C. Merely because a person utters some words without knowing that the court proceedings are going on can hardly be construed as an intentional interruption or insult of the court proceedings. Court room and its precincts are public places and it is quite natural that so many litigants, accused and their friends and relatives may throng the court premises to attend the proceedings. It is also quite natural that some such persons may engage in conversation sometimes causing much annoyance and inconvenience to the court proceedings. They are to be dealt with in a manner depicting the dignity of the court. The judicial officers shall not be too sensitive and too ready to take offence in all such matters. Of course he is fully entitled to maintain the dignity of the court.
7. While taking proceedings in accordance with Section 345 Code of Criminal Procedure the court shall scrupulously follow the procedure. Here the Respondent asked the Petitioner as to whether he committed offence punishable u/s 345 Code of Criminal Procedure. The very question put to the Petitioner was incorrect as the. offence, if at all committed by the Petitioner is one u/s 228 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the impugned order, the facts constituting the offence punishable u/s 228 I.P.C. are not mentioned. The main ingredient of the offence was whether the Petitioner had intentionally interrupted the proceedings of the court. This aspect of the offence was not put to the Petitioner and he was not asked to explain the same. It is also to be noticed that without affording a proper opportunity the Petitioner was straightaway convicted and he was asked to pay the fine. A copy of the order also was not furnished to the Petitioner.
8. In the instant case; even according to the version given by the Respondent the Petitioner was found talking in the court verandah. The Peon brought the Petitioner to the court room and showed to the Respondent and probably told that he was the person who caused interruption to the court proceedings. The proceedings do not show that the Peon was examined to prove that it was the petitioner who talked loudly in the verandah causing interruption to the proceedings. It is doubtful as to whether Section 345 Code of Criminal Procedure itself has got any application in this case. As per Section 345 Code of Criminal Procedure court is given a special privilege to take cognizance of the above offence if only it is committed in the view or presence of the court. If the offence was committed elsewhere not in the view or presence of the court, the court is not competent to take cognizance. In this case, as per the allegations, the offence was committed within the court precincts but while taking cognizance the Peon who had seen the offender talking and causing interruption to the proceedings should have been examined as a witness. It is not mentioned that the Respondent identified the Petitioner by voice.
9. The Respondent has violated the procedure prescribed u/s 345 Code of Criminal Procedure When a particular mode is prescribed by the statute for the exercise of power, the authority shall exercise the power in accordance with law-prescribed under that statute. If it is otherwise done the order is vitiated by procedural impropriety. The impugned order passed by the Respondent suffer from several infirmities. The ingredients of the offence were not put to the Petitioner. He was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The offence was not committed in the view or presence of the Court, hence the Court lacked jurisdiction to invoke Section 345 Code of Criminal Procedure. The nature of interruption of proceeding is not mentioned in the order. The last but not the least infirmity is that copy of the order was not given to the Petitioner as soon as he was convicted by the Court.
10. This Court is disturbed by the case and by the procedure or lack of procedure by which the Judge reached his conclusion. The Judge could have dealt with the matter by perhaps a reprimand or by a verbal rap over the knuckles instead of resorting to conviction and sentence without even properly caring to note and observe the relevant procedure. As the matter pertains to the administration of justice, I quash the order under Article 227 of the Constitution. The fine, if any, paid by the Petitioner shall be returned to the Petitioner within two weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Original Petition is allowed.
*A reproduction from ILR (Kerala Series).
